When I served in the General Assembly, I learned to measure every big idea against two questions. Is it the right tool for the job? Will it make Marylanders safer? The climate lawsuits brought by Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County fail on both counts. They have generated headlines and legal fees, but not a single real solution.
Two Maryland state courts have already dismissed them. In July 2024, Judge Videtta Brown ruled against Baltimore, finding that Maryland law cannot be used to address the harms caused by global greenhouse gas emissions. In January 2025, Judge Steven Platt dismissed the Annapolis and Anne Arundel cases after concluding that Judge Brown's reasoning was correct. Both judges emphasized that questions about worldwide emissions are for Congress and federal regulators, not state courts.
Those three cases are now before the Supreme Court of Maryland on appeal, with a hearing that took place earlier this week where the justices collectively expressed doubt regarding the climate suits filed by Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. The U.S. Department of Justice has urged the justices to affirm the dismissals, arguing that the claims reach across borders and implicate substantial federal interests. The federal brief is blunt. States lack the authority to decide how much greenhouse gas emissions from a neighboring state or foreign country are too much, and any attempt to do so is preempted by federal law.
The Justice Department is not alone. Twenty-four state attorneys general, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and other legal scholars have filed briefs warning that the lawsuits rest on an expansive and unprecedented theory of nuisance liability. They caution that allowing them to proceed would invite Maryland courts to regulate the cumulative effects of global emissions, something no single state can do.
That warning reflects the reality already recognized by judges around the country. Maryland's consumer protection laws would not stop a hurricane, a tidal surge or a heatwave. The mismatch between the legal claims and the real harms makes these lawsuits the wrong tool.
To be sure, not every jurisdiction has followed the same path. A case in Honolulu is proceeding, and Massachusetts is still pursuing a consumer protection claim against one company in state court. But a growing majority of courts have rejected similar suits in New York, Delaware, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. The trend is clear. A patchwork of conflicting rulings is exactly what the doctrine of federal preemption is designed to avoid.
The question before the Supreme Court of Maryland is therefore straightforward. Should state laws be stretched to cover claims about global emissions, or should those questions remain where Congress placed them, under the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes? Two Maryland judges have already said no. The Justice Department and a wide array of stakeholders agree.
What does this mean for Marylanders who live and work along the Chesapeake Bay, the Patapsco, the Severn or the Potomac rivers? It means that litigation is not a resilience plan. These cases have not raised a single flood barrier in Annapolis. They have not cleared a storm drain in Anne Arundel County. They have not reinforced a single power substation in Baltimore. Whatever the Supreme Court decides, the verdict will not deliver the projects and investments needed to protect families and businesses.
If the high court upholds the dismissals, Maryland will stand with the growing number of state and federal courts that have dismissed the use of state and local laws to regulate global emissions. If it reverses, the lawsuits will return to years of discovery and motions with no certain outcome and no immediate benefit for Marylanders.
There is a better path. Instead of leaning on lawsuits, policymakers should focus on projects with measurable results. Tide gates, drainage upgrades, living shorelines and coastal berms can protect communities from flooding. Stronger substations and modernized transmission infrastructure can enhance the reliability of the grid. Better building codes and targeted incentives can reduce both energy costs and climate risks. State leaders can accelerate permitting and align funding to ensure progress reaches neighborhoods more quickly.
Managing the risks from extreme weather events is a basic responsibility of government. But the courthouse cannot raise a wall or reinforce a levee. The Supreme Court of Maryland will decide the legal question. Our elected leaders must do the rest by investing in the practical, proven solutions that Marylanders can see and trust.